[openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the Stackalytics stats
jay at jvf.cc
Fri Apr 8 22:54:01 UTC 2016
I know a lot of folks explicitly avoid a +0 vote with a comment because you don't get "credit" for it in statistics. Whether or not that should matter is another discussion, but there is a significant disincentive to no-voting right now.
From: Dolph Mathews <dolph.mathews at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 1:54 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the Stackalytics stats
On Friday, April 8, 2016, John Dickinson <me at not.mn<mailto:me at not.mn>> wrote:
On 8 Apr 2016, at 13:35, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-04-08 19:42:18 +0200 (+0200), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>> There are many ways to game a simple +1 counter, such as +1'ing changes
>> that already have at least 1x +2, or which already approved, or which need
> The behavior which baffles me, and also seems to be on the rise
> lately, is random +1 votes on changes whose commit messages and/or
> status clearly indicate they should not merged and do not need to be
> reviewed. I suppose that's another an easy way to avoid the dreaded
> "disagreements" counter?
> Jeremy Stanley
I have been told that some OpenStack on boarding teaches new members of the community to do reviews. And they say, effectively, "muddle through as you can. You won't understand it all at first, but do your best. When you're done, add a +1 and move to the next one"
I advocate for basically this, but instead of a +1, leave a +0 and ask questions. The new reviewer will inevitably learn something and the author will benefit by explaining their change (teaching is the best way to learn).
I've been working to correct this when I've seen it, but +1 reviews with no comments might not be people trying to game. It might simply be people trying to get involved that don't know any better yet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev